lots of files

[Tim Williams]

"Tom Miller" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m91mvp$jv$1@dont-email.me...

Five years from now we will be saying "remember back when JL said 3 TB
is
all the memory anyone will ever need".

Just kidding John.

Five years from now, old fogies will be saying, "remember that Usenet
thing?" ;-)

....But then, the Internet will answer "yes", because the internet never
forgets...

Not sure if that was a joke or not.. it's pretty well true already, so...
*shrug*

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/01/2015 11:07 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Den tirsdag den 13. januar 2015 kl. 01.02.08 UTC+1 skrev Sylvia Else:
On 13/01/2015 10:58 AM, Tom Miller wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:chj520F6votU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Five years from now we will be saying "remember back when JL said 3 TB
is all the memory anyone will ever need".

Just kidding John.



I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.

Sylvia,

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk

2Mb of RAM? You had it soft. When I was a gal, our dad gave us 16k if we
were lucky.

Sylvia.

 

[Don Y]

Hi Sylvia,

On 1/12/2015 4:52 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sure there is! The problem is always with the *read* head! :>

 

[Don Y]

On 1/12/2015 5:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk

2Mb of RAM? You had it soft. When I was a gal,

--------------------------------------^^^ recent sex change operation??

:>

> our dad gave us 16k if we were lucky.

I recall having a 512KB (RAM) CP/M box and thinking it was greased lightning!

 

[Tom Miller]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:chj62fF72o8U4@mid.individual.net...

On 13/01/2015 11:07 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
Den tirsdag den 13. januar 2015 kl. 01.02.08 UTC+1 skrev Sylvia Else:
On 13/01/2015 10:58 AM, Tom Miller wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:chj520F6votU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm
thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Five years from now we will be saying "remember back when JL said 3 TB
is all the memory anyone will ever need".

Just kidding John.



I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.

Sylvia,

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk


2Mb of RAM? You had it soft. When I was a gal, our dad gave us 16k if we
were lucky.

Sylvia.

My first computer had 4 k ram and Tiny Basic interpreter that took up 1.3 k
of memory. The first ram was very expensive.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,
a 5 TB drive will hold 2.5 million pictures. I'll never take that many
pictures. If I typed 8 hours a day for a lifetime, that's less than a
gigabyte of characters, 1/5000 of that drive. Well, I type slow.

My email backup is about 4 gbytes. I keep about 10 of them on my 1T
USB drive, rolling backups. That's only 40 Gbytes.

It's mind boggling to think of a relatively cheap hard drive that
stores 5e12 bytes of data. We'll probably see 1e14 one of these days.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".
There ain't no such animal.
Sylvia.

The problem with disk drive space is that no matter how much storage
you have, something will come along and try to fill it. I thought I
was doing well to limit my media collection to about 1TB. Then, I
started saving multiple image backups of my customers machines. These
gobble 30-100GB per backup image. I now have about 25TB backed up,
and growing rapidly. GINO (Garbage In, Never Out).

For those that don't believe that hard disks fill themselves while
you're not looking, just leave an empty waste basket anywhere in the
office and watch as it fill up by itself.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/01/2015 12:03 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,
a 5 TB drive will hold 2.5 million pictures. I'll never take that many
pictures. If I typed 8 hours a day for a lifetime, that's less than a
gigabyte of characters, 1/5000 of that drive. Well, I type slow.

My email backup is about 4 gbytes. I keep about 10 of them on my 1T
USB drive, rolling backups. That's only 40 Gbytes.

It's mind boggling to think of a relatively cheap hard drive that
stores 5e12 bytes of data. We'll probably see 1e14 one of these days.

You'd think there'd have to be a limit. If your disk can hold more HD
movies than you could watch in a lifetime, how could you need more?

Then someone decides to issue photorealistic terrain data of the entire
world for a flight simulator...

Sylvia.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:24:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 12:03 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,
a 5 TB drive will hold 2.5 million pictures. I'll never take that many
pictures. If I typed 8 hours a day for a lifetime, that's less than a
gigabyte of characters, 1/5000 of that drive. Well, I type slow.

My email backup is about 4 gbytes. I keep about 10 of them on my 1T
USB drive, rolling backups. That's only 40 Gbytes.

It's mind boggling to think of a relatively cheap hard drive that
stores 5e12 bytes of data. We'll probably see 1e14 one of these days.



You'd think there'd have to be a limit. If your disk can hold more HD
movies than you could watch in a lifetime, how could you need more?

I'd rather stream movies than store them. There aren't many that are
worth watching multiple times. I only need one or two on a laptop for
a plane ride or something. Let Amazon or Netflix spin and mirror all
those drives.

Then someone decides to issue photorealistic terrain data of the entire
world for a flight simulator...

I'd rather read a dead-tree book!


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <m91o1o$m2t$2@speranza.aioe.org>, this@is.not.me.com says...

On 1/12/2015 5:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk

2Mb of RAM? You had it soft. When I was a gal,

--------------------------------------^^^ recent sex change operation??

:

our dad gave us 16k if we were lucky.

I recall having a 512KB (RAM) CP/M box and thinking it was greased lightning!

Sure, i had that with a C-128 with 512 memory expander.. Execute a jmp
to address $1000 I think it was and that put you in CP/M land..

Jamie

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <chj62fF72o8U4@mid.individual.net>,
sylvia@not.at.this.address says...

On 13/01/2015 11:07 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
Den tirsdag den 13. januar 2015 kl. 01.02.08 UTC+1 skrev Sylvia Else:
On 13/01/2015 10:58 AM, Tom Miller wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:chj520F6votU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Five years from now we will be saying "remember back when JL said 3 TB
is all the memory anyone will ever need".

Just kidding John.



I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.

Sylvia,

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk


2Mb of RAM? You had it soft. When I was a gal, our dad gave us 16k if we
were lucky.

Sylvia.

Oh, you had one of those Timx Sinclair s too _

Jamie

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <edc0f4ff-1466-4c9b-a9d0-6c3b1ff7b4dd@googlegroups.com>,
langwadt@fonz.dk says...

Den tirsdag den 13. januar 2015 kl. 01.02.08 UTC+1 skrev Sylvia Else:
On 13/01/2015 10:58 AM, Tom Miller wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:chj520F6votU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Five years from now we will be saying "remember back when JL said 3 TB
is all the memory anyone will ever need".

Just kidding John.



I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.

Sylvia,

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk


-Lasse

Sure, 640k with a 40 Meg HD was more than I would ever need, at least
for what that machine could ever do. That was a commodore XT turbo
Clone.

Jamie

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:14:59 -0700, the renowned Don Y
<this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 1/12/2015 5:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk

2Mb of RAM? You had it soft. When I was a gal,

--------------------------------------^^^ recent sex change operation??

Ah, leave Sylvia alone. ;-) Redux of all the "when I were a lad" tall
tales.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:07:21 -0800 (PST), the renowned Lasse Langwadt
Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk


-Lasse

I remember when a 15Mb HDD was an expensive (slow, clunky) luxury...
the first one I bought (some years later) was something like 30Mb or
40Mb. Now 1,000 of them will fit on a cheap thumb 'drive'.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Sylvia Else wrote:

I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.

My first hard drive was a whopping 5 MB.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 09/01/2015 23:04, John Larkin wrote:

I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless

That seems awfully low. I have about 250k files on my newest machine and
it has hardly got any big projects on it yet. That is just for the OS,
Office, compilers and work in progress (not counting hidden files).

task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

There are tools that allow you to see where the space is all going and
also to look for multiple copies of identical files in different
locations. It is surprising just how much rubble can build up in hidden
'Doze temporary directories if you don't nuke them from time to time.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

When I change machine I archive the old disk contents, keep it online
for a good while and only move forwards anything that I actually use.
This avoids carrying too much dead wood around.

No point in having the sourcecode for something where the compiler is
long gone and would not run on any machine since DOS 6.22 or a debugger
that requires a prehistoric printer port at a particular address.

I don't take bets on lifetime supplies of bulk storage. Editing digital
video and rendering it into HD streams can burn up disk very quickly.

Nalimov 6 man tablebases are 1.2TB so keen chessplayers already have
that much disk committed (or 160GB for the newer compact Syzygy ones).
It is only a matter of time before important 7 man ones come out...

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/01/2015 01:03, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:

I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Most will do HD video clips at a pinch although it hammers the battery.

a 5 TB drive will hold 2.5 million pictures. I'll never take that many
pictures. If I typed 8 hours a day for a lifetime, that's less than a
gigabyte of characters, 1/5000 of that drive. Well, I type slow.

Typing is never going to fill it up even if you employ a team of
keyboard monkeys. Program output can easily fill it up.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, the renowned Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 01:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:

I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

And most folks serious about their photos will use RAW rather than
suffer the quality reduction of JPG, which is several times bigger. Or
RAW + JPG, which is obviously bigger again. At 5-10 shots a second for
a decent DSLR, you can fill a lot of memory quickly.

Most will do HD video clips at a pinch although it hammers the battery.

a 5 TB drive will hold 2.5 million pictures. I'll never take that many
pictures. If I typed 8 hours a day for a lifetime, that's less than a
gigabyte of characters, 1/5000 of that drive. Well, I type slow.

Typing is never going to fill it up even if you employ a team of
keyboard monkeys. Program output can easily fill it up.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Doesn't take many hours of video, even at HD 1080p, let alone what the
4K/8K resolutions will require in the near future.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 01:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:

I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Most will do HD video clips at a pinch although it hammers the battery.

If you are doing astrophotography by shooting a huge number of raw
(say 3x8 bit or 3x10 bit/pixel) raw frames and after atmospheric
realignment "stack" these frames together, you will only need these
raw uncompressed frames before stacking. After that you can throw away
the raw frames.

For real world photography, increasing the camera resolution doesn't
increase the storage requirement in the same degree. Any real
photograph will contain unicolor areas that after DCT transformation
will contain zero high frequency (or at least low amplitude)
components, which can be stored with zero (or few) bits. Combining
DCT and RLE (Run Length Encoding) you can do quite a lot of lossless
compression, without even going to lossy compression.

The camera lens resolution will drop at the edges, thus there will be
fewer DCT coefficients at the edges.

JPEG got a bad reputation, when it was applied too aggressively. For
final products, such as displaying on a big monitor or printed on a
sheet of paper, it is still OK and the space requirement doesn't
increase linearity by the number of raw camera pixels.

For moving pictures, increasing the frame rate (say from 24 to 300
fpm), doesn't increase the storage space requirement at the same rate,
since in MPEG the number and size of I-pictures will remain constant,
while the number of P-pictures will increase, but the size of each
P-picture will drop radically (smaller motor vector _change_ between
frames.

Increasing the frame rate might even help the MPEG compressor to
segment objects into foreground and background and store them as a
separate object.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den tirsdag den 13. januar 2015 kl. 20.39.11 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:22:01 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

You also have to be keenly aware of how your document prep software
*stores* images (both for efficiency reasons AND security!). E.g.,
I've decomposed PDF's to discover the original images from which ONLY
*cropped* portions were intended to be visible in the document. So,
anything that you don't want *in* the document should be cropped
off *before* embedding the image (with whatever tool you are using).

I use Irfanview to crop and tweak jpegs. The files get much smaller,
so I don't think any of the deleted stuff is still there.

This requires a second step when building a document. And, a "manual
means" of conveying what you think you want *in* the document layout tool
*to* the photo editor. I.e., "I want the left edge of the image to be
EXACTLY here, right edge THERE, top and bottom..."

I use Irfanview and Word. I downsize and crop and tweak colors in
Irfanview, then drag into Word. Word lets me position and scale size,
well enough. It works.


With WYSIWYG tools, it is usually easier to just zoom and drag the
original image "behind" a window into the document. But, that leaves
much of the original image still *in* the document!

E.g., don't expect to pan and zoom to display just an image of your
face from a photo of yourself standing next to your *mistress* and
NOT expect the mistress' identity to leak out! :

Oh. Gosh. My bad.



[i.e., the document software makes the *displayed* image just a WINDOW
into the *real* image -- which is also present in the document, though
not expected to be visible]

Word does that, if you crop after the image is imported. The image is
still available for re-cropping.

Yes. So, you're stuck panning and zooming until you've got it "just
right" (FoR THE DOCUMENT). Now, have to somehow convey that *visual*
criteria to the external tool to come up with a correctly cropped
image (which you will then use to replace the original *in* the document).

My point is, this happens unbeknownst (talk about "funny words"! :> ) to
may users/publishers! Ditto for EXIF data *in* images... (I've often
wondered if many of the social media, etc. sites actually scrub this
stuff from the images posted?

Sometimes people leave all the apparently-invisible collaborative
edits in a Word doc. That can be fun. There have also been embarassing
legal PDFs where blacked-out stuff was just underneath some black
stuff, easily recovered.

I believe some of the the paranoid three letter agencies have a policy
that that redacting must be done by printing, covering, then scanning

-Lasse